The price is even more stark, says CNAS, if you compare the total life cycle costs of a carrier strike group to that of five destroyers. A strike group -- typically composed of the carrier, its air wing, five surface ships and a submarine -- costs $6.5 million a day to operate. He says the figure is $1.8 million for five destroyers.

There’s also the issue of the cost efficiency of the F/A-18 Hornets, which operate from land and sea. The report estimates that Hornets dropped about 16,000 bombs over the past decade. Hendrix divided that number by 1,000 -- taking in all Hornets -- and determined that the planes, on average, would have dropped only 16 bombs each during the past decade. He places the price tag, per bomb, at $7.5 million.

“That is quite substantial when compared with the precision-strike Tomahawk cruise missile, which each cost a conservative $2 million,” writes Hendrix, who says it it may be wiser to rely more on missiles fired by ships and submarines.

He also expressed concern that a carrier could be knocked out by a comparatively inexpensive Chinese DF-21D missile.

“The risk of a carrier suffering a mission kill that takes it off the battle line without actually sinking it remains high,” Hendrix writes.

CNAS gets plenty of blow back on such claims.

“I think the threats to aircraft carriers are no greater today than they were during the height of the Cold War,” said Eric Wertheim, a defense analyst at the U.S. Naval Institute in Washington D.C.

There’s also disagreement over the report’s claim that, over time, a heavier reliance on precision missiles could reduce the role of carriers.

“Different weapon systems, air platforms and carriers are making technological advances, too, which make carriers even more necessary,” said Congressman Hunter, a former Marine who now serves on the House Armed Services Committee.

“An example is configuring the F-35 (Joint Strike Fighter) to land on carrier decks, meaning that we will be able to deliver quick strike capability from anywhere in the world. There’s no questioning the importance of carriers for global force projection and security.”

The issue of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) is less contentious.

Hunter has been a strong supporter of UAVs, which are part of an industry that’s dominated in the United States by two San Diego County companies, Northrop Grumman and General Atomics Aeronautical Systems. He told a reporter from DefenseMediaNetwork that, “It is likely that we will never again become involved in combat without heavily using numerous UAVs overhead. The open and barren terrain in Southwest Asia favors drones for surveillance, unlike jungle canopies of Southeast Asia.”

The pace of development is another matter.

Northrop's X-47B unmanned combat air system demonstrator went through taxi tests on the carrier Truman last December.
US Navy

Northrop's X-47B unmanned combat air system demonstrator went through taxi tests on the carrier Truman last December.

The CNAS report envisions a much great role for a particular type of drone, the unmanned combat air vehicle, which could be configured to carry weapons as well as perform surveillance and reconnaissance. Late last year, Northrop’s X-47B underwent taxi tests on the carrier Harry S. Truman as part of the Navy’s unmanned combat air system program. General Atomics is developing the Sea Avenger, a different UCAV.